Ethiopian Highlands Annual Review and Planning meeting

Early win projects - consolidation from year 1

• Following agreed site selection criteria are essential
• A gap analysis of quick win projects would be great
• How to link the three mega sites in the broader program? The research framework helps in this respect and needs to be shared.
• This project has to work in an integrated / systemic way and engage stakeholders on the national food security agenda
• Natural resource management is on the agenda but we don't have the budget in this program to do a large scale watershed focus project - however we can engage with other groups that work at that scale
• We should keep in mind markers, integration with other CRP 1.1./1.2 projects and capacity building

• Carry forward the quick win project to feed into the broad program
• We need mixed approaches, there is too much info about quick wins
• One thing we find important to look carefully at is which site to carry out research at?
• The issue of diagnostics studies: there are site selection criteria. We have to follow some of those
• As Peter mentioned, we also need a bottom-up approach, we need to have criteria how to select those sites.
• What technologies do we have in order to change? Maybe there is lack of capacity
• We should be market-oriented
• Free grazing issue: it should be address both from a conservation point of view and from livestock point of view (it is then less productive)
• We need to have a gap analysis across quick win projects, discuss this issue,
• The program seems to be more technical driven than institutional system
• Typologies.....how do we link them to other areas, e.g to west Africa, how do we link them
• The first part of the research framework is about characterization and typology definition, there is a linkage with other mega sites / projects.
• That research framework needs to be shared
• The most important thing is to have food security strategy for the coming five years
• There is priority set already at the national level, this project has to align itself with priorities, it should be on the map
• We need to follow an integrated approach, a system approach, looking at the landscape and we need to mobilize the community in an integrated manner
• We have tools and information but we need to follow an integrated system
• Natural water management is not integrated with this project, you have to consider natural resource management
• The focus is household level. This is where the intervention will be tested
• The interpretation is about local economy, linking with other mega sites
• The focus is on innovation intensification
• We do look at natural resource management with a specific role, how do we do our linking in a practical manner to larger scale?
• We can’t focus on a large scale to watershed we have a limited fund
• Rural population, farmers make income from exploitation; that is a link they should use to benefit from ecosystems but so far I didn’t see any discussion around where we could create that link
• One of the ways we can link the scale is to react with other activities and to engage with other groups that could be the informal community groups, to engage with natural resource management and also with policy makers at regional and national levels
• We have limited resource to some extent we have to constrain ourselves to some areas
• We need to understand CRP 11 and CRP 12 in the policy element. How do we create synergy with others
• Aiming at intensifying the small household farming system, what changes do we expect to see after this project?
• Capacity building activities?
• In the area we are working the livelihood is very similar,
• Sufficient consideration has to go for the need for markets, linking farmers with markets